Before things turn too ugly this week, let's take a moment to flag four great progressive things --- arguably, four great conservative progressive things --- which all happened on Friday.

The first two items got a fair amount of notice, the second two, not so much. But since they all happened on the same day, and that day was Friday, when such stories tend to disappear all together, they are all worth briefly flagging here to make sure you're aware of them...

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a co-sponsor of the unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) in 1996, became the first sitting Republican Senator to come out in favor of marriage equality for all. It took him learning that he had a gay son two years ago before he was finally able to do the right thing, but we'll take what we can get. It's another in a string of victories and very encouraging signs for conservative progressivism, specifically the right of equal protection under the law for all.

The Maryland legislature voted to ban the inhumane, abhorrent, expensive, ineffective and unequally applied Death Penalty. They become the 6th state in as many years to do so, and the 18th state overall. As Governor Martin O'Malley (D) notes in an op-ed today: "Across our ever-more-closely connected world, the majority of public executions now take place in just seven countries: Iran. Iraq. The People’s Republic of China. North Korea. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. And the United States of America." This is another clear victory for those who believe in the Constitutional value of equal justice for all under the law and who hate Big Government --- the biggest --- allowing itself to kill its own citizens.

A federal court ruled that the use of so-called "National Security Letters" --- essentially, a warrantless statement from the FBI handed over to banks, libraries, phone companies, etc., demanding unlimited private information about a specific person for supposed "national security purposes" --- is unconstitutional. Specifically, the gag order on those banks, libraries, phone companies, etc., disallowing them from notifying the target about the intrusion on their privacy, is what the judge found in violation of the First Amendment. The case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF). The use of these letters have been one of the most insidious and abused elements of the PATRIOT Act for a very long time, ever since its passage following 9/11. The court ruling is likely to be appealed by the DoJ, but the finding is, for now, a positive step in the right direction --- at least for those of us conservative progressives who give a damn about unwarranted search and seizure, freedom of speech, etc. AP notes that "the FBI made 16,511 national-security-letter requests for information regarding 7,201 people in 2011" alone.

A federal appeals court has re-instated a case filed by the ACLU arguing that the CIA must, at the very least, respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning the use of the drone strikes. The FOIA requests in question had sought information on "the legal basis for carrying out targeted drone killings; any restrictions on those who may be targeted; any civilian casualties; any geographic limits on the program; the number of targeted killings that the agency has carried out; and the training, supervision, oversight, or discipline of drone operators." Even if the ACLU is ultimately victorious in this case, the CIA would not necessarily have to provide the information sought in those requests, but they would at least have to respond to them and state which responsive documents they may have and why they are not responding. The ACLU notes that the drone program "has already been responsible for the deaths of more than 4,000 people in an unknown number of countries."

After the two court rulings above on Friday, former Constitutional attorney and civil liberties champion Glenn Greenwald tweeted wryly: "Wow ... it's like we have a 3rd branch or something."

Much of this nation's government, all three branches, are largely stuck and broken in the muck and mire of partisan, corporate-sponsored quagmire or worse. So the fact that we had four important, not-horrible, arguably excellent things happen within that quagmire all on the same day on Friday are worth, at least, noting here for the record.

Internet Super Hero Blogger Facing Civil Action Based on Antiquated WV State Law

My name is James Fredrick Jensen. I am Canadian that through the content I provided or was used by a Blogger Norman Alderman has resulted in a Civil Action against the individual. Pocahontas County Resident Norman Alderman: Crusader Or Stalker. Norm is and elderly man that blogs about public officials and corruption in the State of West Virginia.

Why should the media care or follow this Story? Protecting our rights including yours of the media.
700,000 individuals follow this blogger.

The action filed is based on WV State law see §3-8-11. This law does not relate to the case at hand it has been used as the basis to have the case filed against Alderman. If Alderman looses he will be forced to shut down his Blog.

We have the David and Goliath part of the story. A corrupt or questionable assistant prosecuting attorney formerly of the old boys club big law firm in WV goes after a Blogger.

If this case is allowed to proceed without media attention, if Mr. Alderman would loose this case, what will the future for Bloggers in WV hold? Or in other states.

In Affidavits filed as part of this legal process, one Charles Bailey a senior partner in the law firm of Bailey and Wyant and one Robert P. Martin are claiming this blogger Norman Alderman has slandered and defamed the parties by posting content about my relationship with Bailey and Wyant and one Robert P. Martin.

Content I have posted on line has been carefully screened for slander and defamation. What I have posted on line about my relationship with Bailey and Wyant and one Robert P. Martin is factual and correct. Bailey and Wyant has attempted to have my content removed by means of DMCA Takedown Notice. One article out of hundreds has been removed.

I am not seeking publicity for myself. I feel that Norman Alderman is the victim of Bailey and Wyant and one Robert P. Martin. By this action they are attempting to hide the truth about the conduct of Bailey and Wyant and one Robert P. Martin. Conduct which has been exposed by Norman Alderman through his Blog.

§3-8-11. Specific acts forbidden; penalties.
(a) Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf, make use of, or threaten to make use of, any force, violence or restraint, or inflict, or threaten to inflict, any damage, harm or loss, upon or against any person, or by any other means attempt to intimidate or exert any undue influence, in order to induce such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting, at any election, or who shall, by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impede or prevent the free exercise of the suffrage by any elector, or shall thereby compel, induce or prevail upon any elector either to vote or refrain from voting for or against any particular candidate or measure; or
(b) Any person who, being an employer, or acting for or on behalf of any employer, shall give any notice or information to his employees, containing any threat, either express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political view or actions of the workmen or employees; or
(c) Any person who shall, knowingly, make or publish, or cause to be made or published, any false statement in regard to any candidate, which statement is intended or tends to affect any voting at any election whatever; or
(d) Any person who shall pay any owner, publisher, editor or employee or any newspaper or other periodical, to advocate or oppose editorially, any candidate for nomination or election, or any political party, or any measure to be submitted to the vote of the people; or any owner, publisher, editor or employee, who shall solicit or accept such payment:
Is guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or confined in jail for not more than one year, or, in the discretion of the court, shall be subject to both such fine and imprisonment.

More on the execrable David Frum, who like other scum, has made his own cottage industry in belatedly, fraudulently and highly ineffectively absolving himself of his contribution to the Iraq "war."
(His current "reckoning" being a check for another article on his "reckoning.")

Happy tenth anniversary of "Shock and Awe" the culmination of the vile combination of vicious US greed and its slimy public relations propaganda machine.

Mr. Jensen, while I certainly do not claim to speak for Brad or others, I found your post over-long and lacking in any details or defense of the claims set out against you and Mr. Alderman. Indeed, the link you posted was to the Complaint against Mr. Alderman (and you). Unless you have facts to contradict those allegations it appears to me Mr. Alderman did commit defamation (though he can avail himself of the broader "public figure" defense).

Because of this I cannot take your complaints and allegations seriously, as internet drama-queenism is all too rampant nowadays. If you have something to say, come out and say it, and present your supporting evidence. Otherwise, refrain from posting vague allegations and innuendo.

Also, screaming "the sky is falling and we're all losing our rights!" without evidence is much like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Because of such unsubstantiated claims, when real infringements of our rights occur posts such as yours serve only to "poison the well" in advance. Are you a disinfo specialist?